LIBRARY OF CpNGR^S,^, 



029 91 5,0781 



.an 



RELIGION IN PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. 



BACCALAUREATE ADDRESS, 



DELIVERED BEFOKE 



THE GRADUATING CLASS 



V 



ANTIOCH COLLEGE, 



YELLOW SPRINGS, OHIO, 



JUNE 2 0, 1860. 



y 



THOMAS HILL. 




BOSTON: 
LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY. 

18 60. 






CAMBRIDGE : 

Allen and rarnhain, Printers. 






o 



ADDRESS. 



I HAVE long felt that the greatest need in our sys- 
tems of education is the need of well-established 
principles in regard to the selection of a course of 
studies. Could we determine upon sure grounds, 
what are the fundamentals of a liberal education, 
and in what proportion they ought to occupy the 
student's mind, the theory of instruction would have 
a firm basis, and we could rapidly advance towards 
perfection in the practice. In the hope of stimulat- 
ing more effective laborers to work upon this prob- 
lem, I have frequently recurred to it upon public 
occasions, treating of various parts of it according to 
the demands of the hour. 

I propose, to-day, to take up the inquiry, To what 
extent and in what form should Eeligion enter into 
the scheme of public instruction ? Shall our public 
schools be thoroughly secularized, and religious instruc- 
tion be reserved exclusively for the Sunday school 
and the pulpit? Or shall our schools become secta- 
rian, and indoctrinate the pupils in the tenets of that 



sect to which a majority in the school district may 
chance to belong? The questions of Bible or no 
Bible, of King James' or the Douay version, now 
agitating in some parts of our country the public 
mind, are but parts of this greater question, whether 
in our schools we are with the "positivist" to ignore 
God, with the Atheist to deny his existence, with the 
Pantheist to dream that we ourselves are God, or 
with the Hebrew, to reverence and adore Him. 

Eeligious questions, being by universal consent the 
most vital of all, naturally engender most heat in 
their discussion. In proportion as a subject appeals 
to deeper and more vital parts of our nature, we feel 
the more interest in opinions upon it, and cling with 
more tenacity and earnestness to our own conclu- 
sions. 

This is evident, not only on a comparison of relig- 
ious questions with others, but on a comparison of 
any two branches of the great hierarchy of sciences, 
or indeed, even upon a comparison of the different 
classes of study in each branch; as I might readily 
illustrate by all the great contests upon disputed 
questions in mathematics, physics, history, politics, or 
religion. The heat of the battle has always been 
proportioned to the elevation of the subject in the 
hierarchy, or to the relation which it bore to meta- 
physical and religious questions. Those questions 
which have referred only to space, to what is exter- 
nal to the soul, have never elicited heat in the dis- 



cussion, even when they have been incapable of solu- 
tion. The dispute has in such cases sometimes seemed 
interminable, but it has not aroused any feeling, at 
least not any to be compared with the intense zeal 
of the politician, the fierceness of metaphysicians, or 
the bigoted fury of theologians. 

I am therefore aware that in approaching this 
question, of the place which religion should hold in 
a course of public instruction, I am approaching dan- 
gerous ground. It may be impossible for me to con- 
sider it without myself betraying a feeling that may 
seem inconsistent with impartial judgment, or else 
exciting feelings in others which will prevent some 
from seeing my errors if I err, and others from ac- 
knowledging the force of my conclusions if I arrive 
at truths. 

Suffer me, therefore, to leave, at first, the path in 
which I propose finally to approach those conclu- 
sions; and to discuss, for a few moments, the ques- 
tion. To what extent and in what form should geom- 
etry enter into a course of public instruction? By 
thus going to the opposite end of the scale of sciences, 
and discussing the question with reference to the sim- 
plest and most elementary science, we may arrive, 
perchance, coolly at principles which will be found 
applicable at every point of the scale, and which 
may guide us safely when we approach the more 
exciting question of religious instruction. 

Shall we admit geometry into the ordinary course of 



6 



public instruction, or shall we reject it ? Of course 
we shall admit it. But upon what grounds? I an- 
swer, because it is a fundamental branch of the hie- 
rarchy, and the knowledge of any thing whatever im- 
plies some knowledge of the truths and relations of 
space. To what extent shall we admit it ? I answer, 
that it should be introduced to a sufficient extent to 
prepare the student for all the studies in the public 
course, at all dependent on geometry; but it must 
not be pursued to an extent sufficient to crowd out 
or exclude the studies for which it is a preparation. 
A due harmony and proportion must be maintained 
in the branches taught, and in deciding what this due 
proportion is, we must take into account the length 
and breadth of the curriculum, and the native powers 
and peculiar circumstances of the individual whose 
tuition is under consideration. 

Then, in what form shall geometry be introduced ? 
— as abstract science or as practical rule ? — in 
theorems or in problems ? and if in problems, shall 
they be solved by construction, or by calculation and 
analysis ? I answer, that the method of nature is to 
rise from examples to principles, and that geometry 
should be presented first in concrete form to the 
eye and to the imagination, and made a matter of 
construction ; afterward the pupil should be lifted up 
to a scientific and even to a metaphysical view of the 
abstract relations of space. The proportions in which 
these modes of presenting geometry should be em- 



ployed, will vary with the length of the curriculum, 
or course of studies, and be adapted somewhat to in- 
dividual circumstances, but the ruling principle will 
always be the same, namely, to give so much and 
such geometrical training as will prepare the pupil, 
as well as his powers and his circumstances will ad- 
mit, for an understanding of the full circle of sciences, 
and thus for the fulfilment of all the duties of his 
station in life. 

The answers which I have thus given concerning 
the science of geometry will be acknowledged, I 
think, by all educators to be, in the main, sound ; 
and the practice of all schools and colleges in the 
world is in essential conformity thereto. In some in- 
stitutions geometry may be neglected, in others over- 
cultivated ; in some treated too abstractly, in others 
made too much a mere matter of drawing with com- 
pass and ruler ; but all this arises from errors of judg- 
ment in applying the fundamental principles of edu- 
cation to the question, and not from any doubt con- 
cerning the principles themselves. 

Turning now to the main object of my discourse, 
I ask. Shall religion be introduced into the course 
of pubhc instruction, or shall it be utterly excluded? 
And the answer seems to me plain, that we must 
admit it. Even in an intellectual point of view, 
theology is one of the fundamental branches of the 
hierarchy of sciences, and so completely interwoven 
with the rest, that we do not and cannot fully com- 



8 



prehend any one of them, until we have traced it 
in its relations to theology. 

Begin with the simplest of all branches, the mathe- 
matics, and a moment's reflection will show how ut- 
terly worthless they are in every other light than 
this, that they alone give us a knowledge of the 
exactness of God's thought, and alone are capable 
of demonstrating to us, from the manifestation of 
thought in the creation, the necessity of supposing 
the existence of a Thinker. In using the mathe- 
matics for this purpose, of discovering the harmonies 
of creation, and for testing the infinite perfection of 
nature's works, we have the most effective means of 
improving the mathematics themselves. 

Thus, all great improvements in the sciences of 
space and time have arisen from some effort to solve 
the problems suggested by the works of nature ; and 
a large proportion of them have been made by those 
who were stimulated to the solution of these prob- 
lems by the faith that they thereby came into com- 
munion with the thoughts of the Most High. 

In like manner, physics are not carried to their 
true conclusions until they lead us to speculate con- 
cerning the origin of matter, and to trace the designs 
and plans of the Architect of the universe; and, on 
the other hand, these teleological and morphological 
speculations have borne their natural fruit, in lead- 
ing to wider and more exact views of the physical 
sciences. In illustration of this statement, I would 



9 



simply refer to two of the greatest of all names in 
zoology, which is the crowning division of physical 
sciences ; to Cuvier, who was led to his wondrous dis- 
coveries by his steady adherence to the axiom, that 
every organ was intelligently adapted to its func- 
tions ; and to Agassiz, who could advance beyond his 
master only by taking a still higher religious view, 
and assuming that every variation in animal forms, 
and every succession in those variations, is in fulfil- 
ment of one comprehensive plan of the Divine 
thought. 

When we ascend into historical studies, their in- 
completeness, when treated independently of their 
relations to theology, is still more apparent. How 
poor would be the narrative of the growth of the 
arts of life, if we did not recognize the adaptation 
of the physical world to the needs of man, and the 
beneficence of the divine Creator in that adaptation. 
How unsatisfactory our enjoyment of art, and how 
defective our survey of the field of aesthetics, did we 
not perceive here also the tokens of a divine nature 
in man, which makes him capable of appreciating 
the mind of God, as manifested in the forms and 
colors and tones of the material world. The music 
of nature is adapted to man ; and our knowledge of 
music is not complete until we have perceived this 
adaptation, and seen that it arises from the kindness 
of a beneficent Creator. Thus, also, is philology in- 
complete, unless it leads upward to theology. What 

2 



10 



are the various languages of man but so many bar- 
barous dialects, until the clear light of a religious 
mind is thrown upon the study of words, and we are 
taught to hear in the sounds of human speech — so 
simple in their elements, so infinitely various in their 
combinations — the proofs of a Divine Providence, 
and to trace, in the development and growth of lan- 
guages, the plan of an infinitely wise Teacher, car- 
ried out, like his plans concerning the material world, 
by the means of exceedingly simple but ef&cient 
laws ? And in the sciences of political economy and 
law, in the history of governments and of nations, 
what order or what completeness can there be in 
the studies of one who does not seek the footsteps 
of God in history, — who does not recognize the pa- 
ternal character of God, and the wisdom of his plans 
for the development of races, as the fundamental 
axioms of historical research ? 

Nor, finally, is the study of the human mind com- 
plete, unless it leads us to the study of theology, 
and is guided by the light which is from above. No 
man can possibly view the human soul aright, who 
looks upon it either as the highest manifestation of 
matter, or as the highest possible manifestation of 
spirit. Then only can we understand ourselves aright, 
when we find in our own minds feebler glimmerings 
of that infinite wisdom which guides alike the atoms 
and the planets, — fainter emotions of that unfathom- 
able love which has filled the universe with its myri- 



11 



ads of happy creatures. Then only is the study of 
the human mind vested with its highest dignity and 
interest, when we perceive that in studying ourselves, 
we are studying also Him whom we can never fully 
comprehend, but who has, both in creation and in 
the revelation through prophets and apostles, declared 
that we were made in his image. 

Thus self-evident do I hold it to be, that theology 
is a fundamental branch, the crown and glory of all 
the hierarchy of sciences, and that no one branch is, 
or can be, understood in full, until we have traced 
its relations to theology. 

If, therefore, we would have our course of public 
instruction possess any thing like even intellectual 
completeness, it must embrace, from the earliest 
school to the college and university, a proper propor- 
tion of religious teaching. 

And that proportion is to be found, so far as relates 
to the simple intellectual question, in the same man- 
ner as we find it for geometry. It will be determined 
partly by the length of the curriculum. Of course we 
cannot expect, in a simple, common school, to pursue 
theology, or any other branch, with the thoroughness 
with which it should be pursued at a university. It 
will also depend, partly, upon the circumstances of 
the individual scholar. A boy who intends to pass 
his whole life in some mechanical trade, or in a store- 
house, should not be expected to study theology to 
such an extent as one who gives evidence of an 



12 



ability and a desire to become a public teacher, 
whether in the schoolhouse or the church. But, 
with either scholar, the due proportion of directly 
religious instruction should be determined by this 
general principle, that sufficient should be given to 
lead the pupil to see at least the religious bearing 
of his other knowledge, be that other knowledge 
much or little, — that he may neither build too much 
upon an insecure foundation, nor fail to raise the 
most worthy structure which his basis and his cap- 
ital will allow. 

In like manner the questions in regard to the form 
of religion may be answered. The statutes of that 
State in which I passed the first years of my man- 
hood, make it imperative on the teachers of the 
common schools to teach good manners and morals. 
This is teaching religion practically. In the earlier 
years of school life this is right ; — it is the course of 
nature, and precisely analogous to the course which 
I would recommend in the teaching of other depart- 
ments of learning. But as the child grows older, it 
should learn abstract forms of words as well as prac- 
tical rules; and in colleges, should have a certain 
amount of direct studies in natural and revealed 
religion, moral science, and dogmatic theology, — 
regard of course being had to the general principles 
before stated, with reference to the amount. 

The question may, however, be pressed upon me, 
concerning the form of religion to be taught ; whether 



13 



it should be distinctly Christian or not, and if Chris- 
tian, whether it should be distinctly Protestant or 
not. If Protestant, shall it be Calvinistic, Arminian, 
or Pelagian ? The usual answers to such questions 
seem to me founded uj)on fallacious arguments. The 
objections to sectarian teachings, and to intolerance 
of other forms of faith, are valid ; but are very gen- 
erally placed upon what I consider invalid grounds, 
or at least upon secondary grounds, while more fun- 
damental considerations would more effectually settle 
the point. 

It is frequently said that politics and religion should 
be excluded from our common schools, and other insti- 
tutions of public instruction, because they are matters 
upon which men's opinions are divided ; that politics 
taught in a school must necessarily offend the parti- 
sans of opposite views, and religion taught in the 
schools must necessarily wound the conscience of 
those whose doctrines differ from those of the text- 
books. Others have replied that there are common 
opinions in these matters, which it would be well to 
teach ; opinions in which all the world are agreed, 
and which are therefore suitable to be the theme of 
public instruction. 

That such considerations should be only of second- 
ary weight in deciding the great questions under dis- 
cussion, will be at once manifest when we apply them 
to the test at the other end of the hierarchy. There 
are many mathematical and mechanical points, long 



14 



in dispute among the learned, and upon some of them 
there is not a perfect agreement even to this day. 
The foundation of all geometry is in our idea of 
space, and even that is a subject of irreconcilable dif- 
ferences of opinion. The followers of the immortal 
Kant (and even many of those who in most things 
else break away from his paths, follow him here), 
declare that space has no existence other than in 
the mind of the observer, and some of them further 
affirm that it is an idea never attained by those born 
blind. Space, according to these philosophers (and I 
think they comprise a majority of those who have 
shown a decided turn for metaphysical speculation), 
is only a way in which we view things ; it is a law of 
thought, and the proof that it is so, lies in the fact 
that we necessarily conceive of things as occupying 
space. Since we cannot even mentally divest our- 
selves of the idea of space, it must be, say these 
men, a part of ourselves and non-existent out of our- 
selves. 

On the contrary, many geometricians of the highest 
ability believe, as all ordinary men believe, in the 
reality of space external to the mind. To them the 
doctrine of "the laws of thought," the doctrine that 
space and time are forms put upon things by the 
mind, appears the very quixotism of philosophy. It 
amounts to saying that we know that space does 
not exist because we cannot help believing that it 
does exist. 



15 

But, while the fundamental conceptions of geome- 
try, while the very existence of its subject-matter, 
space, is thus in dispute, and the learned world so 
equally divided on the point, is geometry to be ex- 
cluded from the course of pubHc instruction, or shall 
any believer in space hesitate in his public teaching 
to proclaim his faith, and to utter his protest against 
the transcendental delusions and errors which have 
accompanied the growth of transcendental philoso- 
phy ? Certainly no man would ask it. 

Again, there are those who deny that space is the 
subject-matter of geometry. The French school of 
positive philosophy say that geometry is the science 
of measuring extended bodies. Our own countryman, 
H. C. Carey, m the introductory chapters of his splen- 
did work on Social Science, denies to geometry the 
name of science. Science, he says, is the knowledge 
of external nature, and the mathematics is only a 
peculiar language to aid in investigating nature and 
recording results. With still grosser ideas, another 
American writer maintains that a hue is an infinitesi- 
mal thread, and a point an atom, thus reducing 
geometry to the science of extended bodies consid- 
ered as extended. 

Does, therefore, any teacher think that we should 
not carefully guard the student of geometry from 
supposing that he is studying either material shapes 
or mere abstract rules of measurina^ material thino-s ? 

The hke conclusion, that the mere fact of the ex- 



16 



istence of differences of opinion concerning a science, 
does not unfit it to take its place in a course of pub- 
lic instruction, might be drawn from all the other 
sciences. We frequently find men, through a defi- 
ciency of mathematical clearness, opposing the New- 
tonian doctrine of gravity, and stating new theories of 
mechanics ; • — ■ or putting out new ideas concerning 
optics. Even in the Reports of the Proceedings of 
the American Association for the Advancement of Sci- 
ence, you will find a paper explaining the zodiacal 
light, the whole paper being based on the astounding 
assumption that both ends of a straight line may be 
far below the horizon, and yet a large part of the 
line remain above the horizon. 

I might go into chemistry and find still more strik- 
ing instances of differences of opinion. I need not 
allude to bygones, such as the contest concerning the 
nature of chlorine, — but may appeal to the present 
state of the science. Who shall set bounds to the 
doctrines of allotropism, and assure us that the whole 
list of elemental substances is not after all but a series 
of allotropic forms of one and the same substance ? 
Yet if this be so, who shall be able to define the sci- 
ence of chemistry? Nevertheless the science is pur- 
sued and taught and justly considered an essential ele- 
ment in a course of public instruction. It is even 
demanded as a practical science for the use of agri- 
culturists, although the most vital points concerning 
the value of mineral and organic manures are still in 



17 



dispute. We may therefore set it down as certain, 
that differences of opinion concerning the truth or 
falsehood of a doctrine do not constitute, in the judg- 
ment of wise men, any reason for omitting the discus- 
sion of those doctrines from the course of public 
instruction. Nor, on the other hand, is perfect unan- 
imity of opinion upon a point, or perfect certainty 
of a doctrine, any reason why such points should be 
included in our general course of study. No mathe- 
matician doubts the truth, or the utility, of that little 
book on the division of superficies, published by John 
Dee and Frederic Commandine, and thought by Dee 
to be from the hand of the great Euclid, but no 
one has ever proposed to incorporate it, or any part 
of it, into a course of academical study. 

It is, therefore, manifest that the questions of cer- 
tainty or uncertainty, and difference or unity of 
opinion, are only secondary considerations in deciding 
whether a certain study should or should not enter 
into the course of instruction in this or that form. 

The general principles which I have already enun- 
ciated concerning the relation of each part to the 
whole, and to the whole hierarchy of sciences, to the 
length of the curriculum, and to the capacities of the 
individuals, these general principles are sufficient to 
decide the minor as well as the greater questions. 
Those parts of geometry are to be introduced which 
bear most directly upon the progress of the student 
in higher mathematical studies, and to the acquire- 

3 



18 



ment of mechanical, chemical, botanical, or zoological 
knowledge. Those parts are to be excluded which 
are not thus connected. And inasmuch as no knowl- 
edge is wholly disconnected with other branches 
(the work to which I just alluded as resuscitated by 
Dee, is capable of some useful applications in survey- 
ing, etc.), we must omit those things which have 
fewest or least important connections, and retain those 
which are most directly in the highway of truth. 

So in religion. It makes no essential difference 
whether there is, or is not, an agreement of opinion 
on a point; it does not necessarily follow that it is 
important if all are agreed, or that it is unimportant 
if men are disagreed upon it. The question rather 
is, Is this doctrine important in its connection with 
other matters ? Does it throw light on the course of 
history? Does it have a connection with the physi- 
cal sciences? Does it bear directly on the moral 
character of the pupil? Does it bear upon his relig- 
ious character, his habits of piety? 

"We have tested, on such general principles, the 
question whether religion ought, or ought not, to enter 
into the course of public instruction, and have decided 
that it should. But shall we teach Theism or Athe- 
ism, Pantheism or Exotheism? By the last term, I 
designate that steadfast ignoring of religious questions 
to which an exclusive attachment to physical re- 
searches may lead one. But this and blank Atheism 
we have already condemned as unfit to be taught 



19 



anywhere, or by anybody ; Atheism, because it de- 
nies the central truth of all science, the truth which 
alone makes science possible, destroying thus the 
natural head of the whole hierarchy of sciences; 
Exotheism, because it steadily puts this central 
truth of all science out of view, and attempts to 
degrade theology from its natural position of the 
head of the sciences, and to place it in a subordinate 
position among " oldwives' fables." 

It remains, then, to consider whether we should 
teach Pantheism or Monotheism. Now, to me. Pan- 
theism is, in theology, very much like the doctrine 
that in geometry we have only logical forms of 
thought, and are not dealing with entities. To teach 
such geometry seriously and earnestly, is better than 
to deride the science altogether; but it does not 
develop the powers of imagination and conception; 
it does not link itself with all the higher branches of 
science so well as the higher doctrine that geometry 
is the science treating of the real subject-matter — 
space. So, a reverent and devout Pantheism may be 
better than Atheism, and even better than the Exothe- 
ism of positive science. For, as the language of a 
devout spirit, even when intellectually misled towards 
Pantheism, is theistic, the mind of the pupil may 
receive the higher truth, through the medium in- 
tended by the teacher to convey only the lower truth. 
But Monotheistic views alone give theology its true 
position in the scale of sciences, With Pantheistic 



20 

views the highest science is lower than one of in- 
ferior grade. When on going upward through the 
sciences we have at last studied in the human mind 
the laws of thought and feeling and volition, we per- 
ceive that this self-conscious mind is the highest object 
of our thought yet found. But as we have seen, while 
studying the material universe, innumerable evidences 
of wisdom, of plan and of purpose, we must suppose an 
Infinite mind ruling the great mass of matter. But 
here comes the question. Does this great mind which 
adapts all organs to their functions, all materials to 
their uses, all forms to the fulfilment of an ideal 
plan, do so consciously or unconsciously ? In other 
words, when we rise from the contemplation of our 
minds to the contemplation of the Infinite mind, do 
we fall from the consideration of a conscious being, 
to the consideration of an unconscious being ? To 
me it seems that this question answers itself by its 
own absurdity. The modern philosophy which re- 
gards the universe as an unconscious struggle of 
non-being to become being, saved only by that strug- 
gle from relapsing into the pure zero of non-exist- 
ence, saved only by the impossibility of succeeding 
in the struggle, from going over to the pure zero (as 
they term it) of being, seems to me to be itself the 
pure zero of irrationality, — which would be shock- 
, ing to our sentiments of reverence, , if it were only 
sufiiciently intelligible to be comprehended. To us 
who believe in the first article of the creed, that 



21 



there is one God, the Father Almighty, maker of 
heaven and earth, that article is by far the most 
important of all truths ; and it is on this accomit 
that we insist it should make a fundamental point 
in the instruction of youth, and cannot concede that 
on any grounds it should be omitted. 

The second article of the creed is also one which 
must be considered, by those who believe in it, an 
article of fundamental importance. No man, indeed, 
can deny that faith in the revelation made through 
our Lord Jesus Christ, must assume, in the mind of 
one who holds it, a central position — controlling and 
modifying all his course of thought. Our entire 
views of theology and morality are dependent on 
the views we take of Christ, and we cannot, therefore, 
put Christianity among the unimportant parts of relig- 
ious instruction. That some disbelieve in it, and that 
there is warmth of feeling connected with the dis- 
cussion of its truth, cannot justify us in omitting the 
subject, any more than the differences of opinion upon 
questions of chemistry, physiology, and geology, would 
justify a teacher of those sciences in omitting all ref- 
erence to allotropism, to therapeutic agencies, or to 
glacial and diluvial action. The evidences of Chris- 
tianity occupy a central position in theology, which is 
a fundamental science ; and those to whom these evi- 
dences are sufficient are justified on every conceivable 
ground in assuming always in their public instruction 
the authority of the New Testament; and whenever 



22 



their school is of such a nature as to permit it, in 
showing with some minuteness the various branches 
of evidence that tend to estabHsh the fact that Jesus 
was proved to be the Son of God with power by his 
resurrection from the dead, and by wondrous works 
that no man could have done except God were with 
him. I am well aware that there are persons at the 
present day who claim to have outgrown the neces- 
sity of attending to this evidence; some by having 
grown so spiritual that the religious truths proclaimed 
by our Lord commend themselves directly to their 
minds and hearts as true, as needing no external 
proofs of having been uttered by authority; others, 
by having grown too wise to be convinced by such 
proofs, who have set up for themselves new canons of 
criticism that render the falsehood of the gospels de- 
monstrable, and who therefore justify themselves in 
passing by all the evidences of their truth. I am 
well aware of the existence of these persons to whom 
and for whom the evidences of Christianity are noth- 
ing, and who would claim that in consideration of their 
existence, we should omit all distinctively Christian 
instruction from our public course of education. But 
I do not see how their requirements should be granted, 
any more than I see why the existence of persons in- 
capable of receiving the Newtonian laws of philosophy 
should cause us to omit the recognition of those laws 
from our text-books on physics. In order to omit 
Christianity and the evidences of its truth from our 



23 



course of studies, we must show, not that there is not 
a perfect unanimity of opinion upon the matter, but 
that it is a question which does not connect itself 
vitally with our views of history, — which does not 
throw light upon any physical sciences, — which does 
not bear directly upon the moral character of the 
pupil, — which does not affect his religious character, 
his habitual tone of thought on religious things. Now 
no sane man, however strong he may feel himself in 
his rejection of Christ, can deny that the question of 
the reality of the revelation through Jesus does con- 
nect itself, vitally, with all our views of history. Ac- 
cording to the believer in revelation, all previous 
events prepared the way for the coming of Christ, 
all succeeding events have been modified by it, and 
Calvary is the central point in the great historic pic- 
ture of this world. Even the unbeliever in Christ 
must acknowledge that never man spake like that 
man ; that never did the word of prophet or sage 
produce so sudden, so extensive, and so lasting an 
effect upon civilized and enlightened nations as that 
produced by the preaching of the gospel. What 
think ye of Christ, is therefore a fundamental ques- 
tion in the survey of human history. 

Neither can any sane man deny that our recep- 
tion or rejection of Christ affects our views of physi- 
cal science. If we reject Him, then we are natu- 
rally led to reject the views which he gives us of 
the freedom, the sovereignty, and the forgiving love 



24 



of God ; if we accept Hinij we of course accept these 
views, and are ready to receive the doctrines of 
geology which declare that God has frequently acted 
upon our planet in circumscribed limits and at defi- 
nite times, fulfilling through the long course of geo- 
logical changes one plan, which He had in view from 
the beginning, the preparation of the earth for the 
abode of his children, — those doctrines of physics 
which find in all material things the expressions of 
wisdom and of personal kindness, — those doctrines 
of history which recognize a ruling Providence, and 
devoutly acknowledge that 

" There 's a divinity that shapes our ends, 
Rough hew them as we will." 

No sane man can deny that the reception or re- 
jection of Christ will naturally have a tendency to 
afiect the moral character of the pupil. To reject 
him and his doctrines, — to claim that he was in- 
spired in no other sense and in no other degree 
than we may each of us be inspired, if we will pay 
the price, — what can be the effect upon us if not to 
weaken in us the sentiment of reverence, and to 
strengthen out of due proportion the consciousness 
of our own dignity and w^orth? But to admit the 
authority of Jesus, — to acknowledge and open our 
hearts to the love of Him who though he was rich 
yet for our sakes became poor, who though clothed 



25 



with divine powers did not ask divine honors, but 
submitted to poverty, to suffering, and to death, in 
patient attestation of his mission, still offering forgive- 
ness and help from God to those who were seeking 
his life ; to admit the authority of such a master, — 
what can its natural tendency be, if not to soften the 
fiercer passions of the believer, and to bring him, 
at least partially, into a likeness of this divine ex- 
ample ? 

Nor can any sane man deny that the acceptance 
or rejection of the claims of Jesus to direct authority 
from God, must in general have a marked effect upon 
the religious character of the pupil. Few men have 
that strength and depth of religious character, which 
can make them, after rejecting the claims of Jesus 
to direct authority, feel that in their own souls they 
have a direct vision of religious truth, — a direct in- 
ternal vision of the presence of an infinite Father. 
With by far the larger part of the human race, expe- 
rience has shown that if they do not see God revealed 
in the face of Jesus Christ, they do not see him clearly 
at all J their rejection of Jesus' authority is usually, 
and I think naturally, followed by their neglect of 
Jesus' precept to pray, by their disbelief in his doc- 
trine of a special Providence, and finally, by a rejec- 
tion of his doctrine of the Fatherhood of God. When 
a man rejects the evidences of Christianity, he usu- 
ally, and I think naturally, slides towards Pantheistic 
views of the divine nature, 

4 



26 



It must therefore, I hold, be conceded on all sides, 
that the Christian religion is of such importance, in 
its connection with physical, historical, metaphysical, 
moral, and religious truth, as to demand a place in 
every scheme of pubHc instruction, in spite of the 
acknowledged fact that there are those who reject its 
claims to be a revealed religion. But if we bring it 
into our public instruction, how shall we bring it in, 
as believers or as unbelievers ? Surely those who dis- 
agree with us in our convictions would not ask us to 
teach what we think falsehood. If it is, as I have 
endeavored to show, necessary for us to speak on re- 
ligious themes, and to discuss the claims of Christ as 
the Messiah, the King of the new kingdom of God, 
we must of course speak as we beheve. It may be 
right for us to acknowledge to our pupils the exist- 
ence of other opinions; it may even be right for us 
to show to them the reasons adduced by unbelievers 
for rejecting the gospels. But it is certainly more 
imperative upon us, according to all the principles 
which regulate the sphere of education, to show our 
pupils the reasons for thinking the arguments of unbe- 
lievers delusive sophistry, our reasons for thinking 
that the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ 
from the dead is stronger than the evidence for any 
other historical fact whatever. We are bound, by 
every principle which can actuate or guide us in the 
sphere of education, to express to our pupils our view 
of the labors of the great schools of historical, philo- 



27 



logical, and metaphysical critics ; our conviction that, 
upon either and each of these three grounds, the 
rationalistic party, rejecting the supernatural charac- 
ter of the gospel, are inexpressibly weak and sophis- 
tical ; the supernatural party, admitting the claims of 
Jesus, are invincibly strong, not in themselves, but in 
the overwhelming strength of their arguments, appeal- 
ing not to hair-splitting distinctions and refined quib- 
bling, but to the common sense of honest hearts. 
Taking the view which we do of the connection of 
the fundamental Christian doctrine, that Jesus is the 
Christ, with all other truth, we must introduce it into 
public instruction, and, being believers, must of course 
introduce it as believers. 

What then, it may be asked, is to hinder this course 
of reasoning from justifying the introduction of sec- 
tarian strife into our schools and colleges? Do not 
each sect of Christians claim that their peculiarities 
are fundamental doctrines, and must be considered a 
part of Christianity ? 

I answer. No ! There is no sect of Christians who 
will not confess that in the hearty and humble recog- 
nition of the Apostle's Creed lies all that is funda- 
mental in Christianity, The greatest diversities per- 
haps existing in the Christian church, are those be- 
tween Augustine's views and those of Pelagius on 
predestination and freewill; and those between Pa- 
pists, Congregationalists, and the New Jerusalem 
Church, on the source of the light by which we are 



28 



to read the Scriptures. These diversities are so great 
and so nearly fundamental, that they doubtless affect 
in some degree our views of truth in other matters. 
In a Sunday school they may he taught, and in a 
theological school they must be thoroughly discussed ; 
there are, indeed, those who feel that these points 
are sufficiently important in their bearing upon the 
whole field of culture, to demand their introduction 
into colleges. Hence we have, in various parts of 
the country, colleges under the special patronage of 
particular sects of the Christian church. If any man 
feel that the importance of these views is great 
enough to demand their introduction into the col- 
lege course, he is of course right in sustaining such 
colleges. But the highest authorities can be quoted 
from those holding each of the five different opinions 
which I have named, to the effect that their own 
opinions are not absolutely essential to the Gospel, 
but that their opponents may hold the essential body 
of Christian truth in spite of their error ; and hence 
those opinions cannot be of sufficient importance to 
claim their introduction into the common schools. 

The points on which the various sects differ are, 
in general, very much less important than the five 
points of predestination, freewill, the right of pri- 
vate judgment, the authority of the church to inter- 
pret Scripture, and the claims of Emanuel Swedenborg, 
and if these five are not of sufficient importance to 
demand their introduction into the common school, 



29 

of course no other point of sectarian division is 
worthy of that honor. We must remember that the 
human mind is not capable of attending to an unhm- 
ited number of things at once. In the growing mind 
we must, it is true, introduce a due proportion of each 
of the great divisions of science ; but to do justice 
to all we must not show a favoritism toward any. 
In the balancing of a just course of study, great 
prominence must be given to the essential doctrines 
of Christianity, those which are acknowledged by all 
to be the most essential, the most characteristic; and 
if the points about which the sects are divided are 
brought in, then one of two evils follows ; these minor 
points either distract the mind from other and more 
essential parts of religion, or distract it from other 
studies equally important in a liberal or public educa- 
tion. 

The conclusion at which I arrive is therefore this, 
That into the public course of instruction in our 
Christian land it is our privilege and our duty to 
introduce the Christian religion in a positive and 
earnest form, adapted to the ages of the pupils and 
to the length of the course of studies on which they 
have entered, but that the dogmas concerning which 
Christians differ should not be introduced, but be 
reserved for theological schools, — and that these con- 
clusions flow not only nor chiefly from considerations 
concerning the certainty or doubtfulness of such 
dogmas, but from considerations of their relative 



30 



importance and from general principles concerning 
the choice of studies, which govern wise instructors 
in all lower branches. 

Members of the graduating class, — 

It is hard for me to believe that the deep interest 
with which many of you followed for two months 
the exposition of the evidences of Ciiristianity, was 
not shared in some degree by you all. I cannot but 
believe that in the essays which you gave me at the 
close of that study you expressed the real convic- 
tions of your hearts, and that you join me in heartily 
believing that the apostles followed no cunningly de- 
vised fables, but were the eye-witnesses of the maj- 
esty of Christ, and bore testimony to that which they 
had themselves seen and handled. Let me then, as 
the application of this address to your case, and as 
the parting word of my instruction to you in Antioch 
Hall, beseech you to become, whatever your choice 
of a profession, or occupation in life, teachers of 
the religion of Jesus. An educated man is, volun- 
tarily or involuntarily, whatever his walk in life, a 
teacher by word and by example. Be it your care, 
graduates from this Hall, consecrated by the prayers 
of saints, consecrated by the life and death of that 
hero, whose place I imperfectly attempt to fill, be it 
your care that your teaching shall lead those with 
whom you have intercourse, to honor and embrace 
that gospel which they see sanctifying your daily 



31 







deeds and words. So alone shall you fulfil the 
highest office to which you have been called, and 
so alone receive, when graduating from the school 
of life, honors from the Great Teacher of all. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

■ii 

029 915J078J^ 



